IN THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA

IN THE KOGI STATE JUDICIAL DIVISION

HOLDEN IN LOKOJA

ON WEDNESDAY 14^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026

BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP HON. JUSTICE SINMISOLA O. ADENIYI

                                       SUIT NO: NICN/LKJ/18/2022

BETWEEN:

EJIGA MAKOJI STEPHEN……………………………. CLAIMANT

AND

1.     KOGI STATE GOVERNMENT

2.     ATTORNEY GENERAL AND COMMISSIONER                            

FOR JUSTICE, KOGI STATE                                          

3.     KOGI STATE POLYTECHNIC, LOKOJA                             DEFENDANTS

4.     THE GOVERNING COUNCIL, KOGI STATE

POLYTECHNIC, LOKOJA

J U D G E M E N T

The Claimant, initiated this suit on 09/09/2022, by Originating Motion, under the Fundamental Rights Enforcement Procedure Rules. However, by the Ruling of the Court made on 25/05/2023, parties were ordered to convert the Originating Motion to Complaint.  Pursuant to the said Order, the Claimant filed a Complaint and Statement of Facts on 31/05/2023, wherein his claims against the Defendants the following reliefs:

1.         An Order of this Honourable Court declaring illegal, unlawful, null and void and unconstitutional all that acts of the Defendants that undermine the subsisting employment rights of the Claimant with the Defendants same having not been or being determined by the laid down requirements of the Public Service Rules on appointment and Conditions and Scheme of Service of the 3rd & 4th Defendants and a purported dismissal of Civil/Public Servant.

2.         An Order of this Honourable Court declaring illegal, unlawful, null and

void and unconstitutional all that acts of the Defendants that undermine the proprietary rights of the Claimant to his salary(s) and any other rights thereto relating to his moveable property(s) to wit: his unpaid outstanding monthly salaries and allowances for 73 months as a subsisting Lecturer in the employment of the Defendants from April, 2017 - May, 2023 and still counting which thereto violates, and are likely to further violates the proprietary right(s) financial rights of the Claimant to salaries and allowances, and denial to freely access, collect and make use of his legally earned wages to be wrongful, illegal, null and void and devoid of constitutional principles and against the Rule of Law.

3.         An Order of this Honorable Court declaring illegal, arbitrary use of official powers, unconstitutional, null and void the act of the Defendants’ arbitrary, willful and careless refusal to pay the Claimant his salary(s) duly work for and legally earned salary(s) without just cause and without fair hearing and fair trial and thereto violate the fundamental rights of the Claimant to already earned salaries and allowances since the period of April 2017 to May, 2023, and still counting, thereby wrongfully deprived the Claimant the economic value and usage of his salaries and allowances and thereby cause the Claimant an immeasurable financial loss, economic hardship, torture, trauma and lack of fund to attend to his immediate financial needs.

4.        An Order declaring illegal, void, null, unknown to Law and lack of legal procedure and arbitrary use of official powers of the Defendants without due regard to the Rule of Law and in violation of the Claimant’s fundamental rights to livelihood, property; to compulsorily violates the fundamental rights of the Claimant by the outright refusal to pay the

salaries and allowances from the period of April 2017 to May 2023, a

            period of 73 Months and still counting, contrary to Sections 33, 34, 36, 43, 44 (1) (2) and 254C of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended), Conditions and Scheme of Service for Staff of the Polytechnic of the Defendants (hereinafter called Scheme of Service) and Articles 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 15 & 17 of The African Charter on Human & Peoples’ Rights (Ratification and Enforcement) Act, Cap. 10 LFN 1990.

5.         An Order of this Honorable Court directing the Defendants to pay up the total sum of N8,119,187.75K (Eight Million One Hundred and Nineteen Thousand, One Hundred and Eight - Seven Naira Seventy, Five Kobo) only, being the outstanding salaries and allowances of the Claimant illegally withheld by the Defendants for 73 months between the periods of April 2017 to May 2023, and still counting, by the combined arbitrary activities of Defendants. And, thereby forthwith stop further breach of the Claimant’s fundamental rights to life, dignity, fair hearing & trial and property as guaranteed by Sections 33, 34, 36, 43, 44 (1) (2) and 254C (1) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended) and Articles 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 15 & 17 of The African Charter on Human & Peoples’ Rights (Ratification and Enforcement) Act, Cap. 10 LFN 1990 and Scheme of Service.

6.        An Order of this Honourable Court reinstating the Claimant to his office and position as entitled staff as provided under the Regulations or Scheme of Service governing the Conditions of Service for the staff members of the 3rd and 4th Defendants.

7.        An Order of this Honourable Court directing the Defendants, especially

the 3rd & 4th Defendants not to illegally, henceforth, withhold the

 salary(s) and allowances of the Claimant save as provided under the

Regulations or Scheme of Service governing the Conditions of Service for the staff members of the 3rd and 4th Defendants.

8.        An Order of this Honourable Court declaring the actions of the Defendants that willfully undermines the fundamental rights of the Claimant by illegally withholding the outstanding salaries and allowances of the Claimant for 73 months and still counting, by the Defendants from the period of April 2017 to May 2023, the legally earned salaries and emoluments; the property of the Claimant without due regard to law to be illegal and arbitrary, and a violation of the fundamental rights of the Claimant as guaranteed under Sections 33, 34, 36, 43, 44 (1) & (2) and 254C (1) (d) & (k)of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended), the Scheme of Service and Articles 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 15 & 17 of The African Charter on Human & Peoples’ Rights (Ratification and Enforcement) Act, Cap. 10 LFN 1990. And a consequential order of this Honourable Court directing the Defendants to pay forthwith the 73 months salaries and allowances of the Claimant for the period of April 2017 to May 2023, under reference and till date.

9.        A Declaration that the joint actions of the Defendants’ refusal to pay up the total sum of N8,119,187.75K (Eight Million One Hundred and Nineteen Thousand, One Hundred and Eight - Seven Naira, Seventy-Five Kobo) only, being the outstanding salaries and allowances of the Claimant for 73 months and still counting, is in violation of the fundamental rights of the Claimant as guaranteed by Sections 33, 34, 36, 43, 44 (1) (2) & 254C (1) (d) & (k) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended), the Conditions and Scheme of Service for Staff of the 3rd Defendant and Articles 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 15 & 17 of The African Charter on Human & Peoples’ Rights (Ratification and Enforcement) Act, Cap. 10 LFN 1990, as unlawful actions aimed against the Claimant’s fundamental rights to means of livelihood, smooth operation and peaceful management of the Claimant’s simple life styles to health, family needs and thereby caused the Claimant economic paralysis, untold hardship, shock, trauma and loss of money as a breach or infringement of the Claimant’s right to human entrepreneurship by disorganizing, disorienting the numerous financial activities of the Claimant.

10.      An Order directing the Defendants jointly and severally not to further usurp the smooth operation and management of the Claimant’s free access and use of his salary by any stretch of refusal to pay up forthwith the withheld salaries and allowances of the Claimant in a purported or orchestrated dismissal by the activities of the Defendants since the illegal stoppage of the salary and allowances of the Claimant for the periods between the months of Apr11 2017 to May 2023 and any further act that is capable to violate, likely to violate and/or would violate the Fundamental rights of the Claimant to his salaries and allowances, as guaranteed under Sections 33, 34, 36, 43, 44 (1) (2) & 254C of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended), the Scheme of Service and Articles 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 15 & 17 of The African Charter on Human & Peoples’ Rights (Ratification and Enforcement) Act, Cap. 10 LFN 1990.

11.      An Order awarding the sum of N3,000,000.00 (Three Million Naira) only, to the Applicant being damages suffered from the shock, trauma and mental torture and illegal deprivation of access to salaries and emoluments and illegal refusal to pay up the Claimant’s unpaid salaries and allowances from the period of April 2017 to May 2023, by the Defendants and the usurpation of the free use of Claimant’s earned salaries and allowances to attend to his immediate family needs, health issues, business plans and financial organization by the Defendants’ arbitrary and unlawful use of power to breach or cause infringement on the Claimant’s fundamental right.

12.      General, Exemplary and Aggravated Damages of N1,500,000.00 (One Million Five Hundred Thousand Naira) only, against the Defendants for the arbitrary infraction, threat of further infractions on the fundamental rights of the Claimant vide abuse and/or wrongful refusal to pay up the salaries and allowances of the Claimant for the periods of 73 months between Apr11 2017 to May 2023, and still counting contrary to guaranteed rights under Sections 33, 34, 36, 43, 44 (1) & 254C of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended) and other relevant laws.

13.      N1, 000,000 (One Million Naira only) being the cost of prosecuting this suit by the Claimant, with 10% post judgment interest rate pending full payment.

2. A summary of the Claimant’s case as gleaned from the Statement of Facts, is that he was employed as Assistant Lecturer in the Department of Architectural Technology of the 3rd Defendant and he has not breached any of the conditions of his appointment or the Scheme of Service of Staff of the 3rd and 4th Defendants. The Claimant alleged that in violation of his fundamental rights, the Defendants illegally, wrongfully and without just cause refused to pay his monthly salaries and allowances from April 2017 till date. His grievance is further that the arbitrary stoppage of his salary or purported termination/dismissal of his appointment was contrary to the procedure in the Conditions and Scheme of Service and statutory laws.

3. The Defendants joined issues with the Claimant by their Joint Statement of Defence

filed on 07/06/2023. The Defendants admitted that the Claimant was offered appointment as Assistant Lecturer by the 3rd Defendant on 04/11/2015 but contend that the Claimant’s appointment was irregular/illegal. According to the Defendants, the Claimant did not comply with the required conditions for his appointment. Essentially, the Defendants’ defence is that the Claimant was amongst other members of staff whose appointment was without due process; that at the time they were offered appointment, no budgetary provision was made for their appointment; that it was difficult for the 3rd and 4th Defendants to continue the payment of salaries and allowances of the Claimant, which  resulted in the stoppage of the his salary and termination of his appointment.

4. The documents tendered by the Claimant to establish his case are:

(i) Letter of Offer of Appointment – Exhibit A

(ii) Letter of Assumption of Office – Exhibit A1

(iii) Letter of Confirmation of Appointment – Exhibit A2

(iv) Letter of Implementation of CONPCASS/CONTEDISS 15 in Polytechnics –    Exhibit A3

(v) Internal Staff Verification Form – Exhibit A4

(vi) Revised Conditions and Scheme of Service for Staff of the Polytechnic, 2017 – Exhibit A5

(vii) Letter forwarding list of Kogi State Polytechnic’s 2015 Academic Staff Appointments - Exhibit A6

(viii) 2015/2016 List of Kogi State Polytechnic Academic Staff Appointments - Exhibit A6B

(ix) Photocopy of Memo written by the AG Kogi State to Secretary to the State Government – Exhibit A7

(viii) Claimant’s Educational certificates/credentials – Exhibit A8

5. The Defendants averred that the Claimant and those affected by the stoppage of their salary and termination of their appointment were informed of the irregular and illegal appointment and contend that the Claimant is no longer in the employment of the 3rd Defendant as he has stopped work since 2017. The Defendants denied violating the Claimant’s fundamental right to his means of livelihood as his employment with the 3^rd Defendant is not a fundamental right. The Defendants urged the Court to dismiss the Claimant’s claims as being incompetent, inconsistent, lack of reasonable cause of action, frivolous, an abuse of court process and lacking in merit. The Defendants did not tender any document in evidence.

6. In his Reply to the Joint Statement of Defence filed on 26/06/2023, the Claimant averred that his appointment was based on his educational qualifications and upon assumption of office, the original certificates of his educational qualifications and NYSC discharge Certificate were sighted, while the photocopies were received by the 3rd and 4th Defendants and they were all documented.  The Claimant further averred that he served the two (2) years’ probation period and having found that his work was satisfactory, his appointment was confirmed on 07/11/2017. The Claimant also averred that the letters dated 17/06/2019 and 06/08/2019, were written by the 3rd and 4th Defendants to the organs of the 1st Defendant, to correct the arbitrary stoppage of his salary and to restore his name on the pay roll. The Claimant urged the Court to grant his reliefs and maintained that his claims are meritorious, competent and not frivolous or an abuse of the court process.

7. At the plenary trial, the Claimant testified in person by adopting his Statement on Oath as his evidence-in-chief and was thereafter, cross-examined by the Defendants’ counsel. The Defendants, in turn fielded one Comfort Omaidu, as the sole witness in support of their defence. She equally adopted her Statement on Oath was also subjected to cross-examination by the Claimant’s counsel.

At the close of plenary trial, parties filed and exchanged their written final addresses as prescribed by the provisions of Order 45 of the Rules of this Court. I should state that upon the elevation of the trial judge, Hon. Justice O. O. Oyewumi, JCA to the Court of Appeal, the case was commenced de novo on 12/05/2025, and pursuant to Order 62 Rule 10 (5) of the Rules of this Court, parties agreed to adopt the previous proceedings for the Court to continue where the case had been stopped by the previous judge.

8. Consequently, in the final address filed on 27/02/2024, by counsel for the

 Defendants, Oyetunji Ojuokaiye, Esq., two issues were distilled as having arisen for

 determination in this suit, namely:

1.         Was the employment of the Claimant wrongfully terminated by the

Defendants in view of the contract of employment between the parties and the Condition of Service?

2.         Whether the Claimants (sic) have adduced sufficient evidence to support their (sic) claims to entitle them (sic) to the reliefs sought.

In the final address filed on 18/03/2024, by the Claimant’s counsel, A. O. Onoja Esq., the two issues formulated as arising for determination are:

1.         Whether or not the Claimant’s employment was ever terminated let alone the action of the Claimant been any issue of wrongful termination by the Defendants in view of the contract of employment between the parties and Conditions of Service.

2.        Whether or not the Claimant has adduced sufficient evidence to support his claims to entitle him to the reliefs sought.

In other words;

Whether or not the Claimant has proved his case to be entitled to the judgment of this court in the light of the reliefs sought.

9. I have painstakingly examined the totality of the pleadings filed by parties in contention; the reliefs claimed, the totality of the admissible and relevant evidence adduced at the trial; and the totality of the written addresses and oral summations of learned gentlemen for the two parties; my view is that, issue two as formulated by the Claimant’s counsel adequately covers the field of dispute in this suit. As such, the Court hereby adopts same in determining this suit. In adopting the issue, I shall make specific reference to the arguments as I deem necessary in the course of this judgment.

10. The evidence on record is that the Claimant was employed by the 3rd Defendant; that his appointment was confirmed and that the employment relationship between the Claimant and the 3rd Defendant is regulated by the terms and conditions of his employment. To further establish his employment status, the Claimant’s letter of offer of temporary appointment, letter of confirmation of appointment and the Revised Scheme and Conditions of Service were respectively tendered as Exhibits A, A2 and A5. By the statutory employment, the Claimant is conferred with a legal status higher than an ordinary master/servant relationship. The effect of his employment status is that his employment is guided by the statute establishing the 3rd Defendant or the Regulations made under it.

11. For starters, I note that at paragraphs 4.15 – 4.18 of the Defendants’ counsel address, an objection was raised on the admissibility of Exhibits A6, A6B and A7. I should state right away that contrary to the argument of Defendants’ counsel that the documents were rejected by the Court, it is shown in the records of the Court of 22/01/2024, that the documents were tendered by the subpoenaed witness who was thereafter discharged. This issue that the documents were rejected is hereby not countenanced.

12. The Defendants’ counsel further argued that the said documents are inadmissible being photocopies of public documents that require certification. As correctly submitted by the Defendants’ counsel, the Courts have consistently held that a public document must be certified as true copy of the original to be admissible. The certification serves as a guarantee by the public officer having custody of the original that the copy is a true reproduction of the original document. The case of Iyabo & Ors Vs Sheidu & Ors [2019] LPELR 48767, clarifies that while a certified true copy is admissible, a photocopy of an uncertified public document or even a photocopy of a certified true copy is generally inadmissible notwithstanding that it was tendered by a subpoenaed witness. However, by virtue of Section 12 of National Industrial Court Act 2006, this Court, may, in the interest of justice depart from the Evidence Act. Therefore, in the interest of justice the said documents are admissible.

13. Now, the universal evidential principle is that the burden of proof in any case is on the person who desires a Court to give judgement as to any legal right or liability dependent on the existence of facts which that person asserts or who will fail if no evidence were given on either side. See Section 133 of the Evidence Act 2011. I am also not unmindful that the Claimant is claiming for declaratory reliefs. It is trite that declaratory reliefs are only granted as products of credible and cogent evidence proffered at the instance of the Claimant. See Col. Nicholas Ayanru (Rtd) Vs Mandilas Ltd [2007] 4 SCNJ 388; Nweke Vs Okorie [2015] LPELR 40650.

14. In the present case, I had undertaken a careful examination of the entire processes/pleadings filed by both parties. By my understanding of the facts as gleaned from the Statement of Facts, the Claimant’s case is that in breach of regulations governing the conditions of his service and the Scheme of Service, the Defendants arbitrarily stopped his salaries and allowances in the month of April 2017 to date and that after series of demand, he was told sometime in 2019 that the stoppage may be an act of dismissal. In other words, the Claimant’s case bothers on the breach of procedure for the stoppage of his salary or removal of his name from the payroll and the violation of his fundamental rights by the Defendants.

15. According to the Claimant, before the arbitrary stoppage of his salary, he was never informed of any allegation of wrongdoing or invited to appear before a committee for investigation or served with any letter of purported dismissal from service of the 3rd Defendant, and the salary stoppage was without three months’ notice or payment of salaries in lieu of notice. The Claimant contends that the action of the Defendants is a violation of his fundamental human rights as guaranteed by the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended)

16. In his argument, counsel for the Claimant referred to paragraph 4.3 of Exhibit A5 that states that payment of salary is a right which can only be withheld, suspended or stopped as a result of a disciplinary action; that the arbitrary stoppage and wrongful removal of the Claimant’s name from the payroll constitutes an infringement on the fundamental right to his salary. Counsel argued further that the no evidence was placed before the Court to prove that the Claimant was tried for any disciplinary action and submitted that the arbitrary stoppage of the Claimant’s salary and wrongful removal of his name from payroll from periods of April 2017 - date is contrary to Exhibit A5 and the Statute that established the 3rd & 4th Defendants.

17. With reference to paragraph 4.3 (a) of Exhibit A5, counsel argued that the Kogi State Pay Parade has no power to arbitrarily stop nor remove the name of the Claimant from the pay roll; that the Defendants have not placed before the Court, the terms of reference of the said Kogi State Pay Parade to determine the extents of its powers or whether it is empowered to stop the salary of the Claimant without first determining the subsisting statutory employment regulated by Exhibit A5. Counsel submitted that it is settled law that a Claimant succeeds on the strength of his case and not on the weakness of defence and that it is equally settled that a Claimant is allowed to rely on or benefit from the weakness of the Defence’ case that support his case. The cases of Lukoya Vs Ashiru [2006] All FWLR (Pt 322) 1479; CPC Vs INEC [2013] All FWLR (Pt 665) 364; Onibavdu Vs Elejuwa [2006] 13 NWLR (Pt 998) 517, were cited to support his propositions.

18. Citing the provision of Section 167 (d) of the Evidence Act, 2023 and the cases of Ateidu Vs Obi [2010] All FWLR (Pt 535) 1891; Associates Ltd Vs MRCAC [2003] FWLR (Pt 174) 922, counsel submitted that the Defendants failed to place the terms of reference of the Kogi State Pay Parade and urged the Court to construe same against them. Counsel further argued that the arbitrary withdrawal of the Claimant’s salary by the Defendants is unconstitutional as their action has infringed on his fundamental rights and have inflicted an untold hardship on him by their conduct. Counsel finally urged the Court to hold that the Claimant has led credible evidence to entitle him to his claims.

19. On the other hand, the defence advanced by the Defendants is that the employment of the Claimant was terminated by the Defendants for non- compliance with the laid down procedure; that the Claimant had stopped working since 2017 and cannot be employed except through a regular and lawful process as provided for under relevant laws. The Defendants contend that the Claimant is not entitled to the sum of N8,119,187.75K or any sum at all having not performed any duty since 2017.

20. The argument of Defendants’ counsel is further that the process of the Claimant’s appointment is regulated by paragraphs 2.1 and 2.2 (a), (c) of Chapter 2 of the Kogi State Polytechnic Revised Conditions and Scheme of Service for Staff of the Polytechnic 2017 – Exhibit A5; that as stated in paragraph 7 of Exhibit A, the conditions of employment of the Claimant, the Defendants are exonerated from any liability for terminating his appointment for irregularity in the process of his appointment. Counsel further argued that the screening exercise was conducted by the 1st Defendant to verify the process of employment, staff list, salaries etc of all Institutions, Ministries and Departments in the State and in the circumstances, effecting the terms of the employment was beyond the Defendants’ control.

21. Now, in civil cases, as required by the law, the Claimant has the initial burden to lead evidence to prove his assertion but the burden of proof is not static. Once the Claimant establishes a prima facie case, the burden of leading evidence in rebuttal shifts on the Defendant and vice versa. In other words, the burden of proof may in the course of a case be shifted from one side to the other. See Section 136 of the Evidence Act (supra). This provision of the Evidence Act has been considered by the Courts in a plethora of authorities. See Onovo Vs Mba [2014] 14 NWLR (Pt 1427) 391; Itauma Vs Akpe-Ime [2000] LPELR 1557; Ezemba Vs Ibeneme & Anor [2004] LPELR 1205. It is clear from the above authorities and the plethora of cases on burden of proof that in order to discover where the burden of proof lies in a civil case, the Court has a duty to peruse the entire pleadings of both parties.

22. In the present case, I had undertaken a careful examination of the entire processes/pleadings filed by both parties. The testimony of the Claimant is that upon assumption of office, he produced the originals of his credentials for verification by the Defendants and the documentation of the certificates was also conducted as required. See Exhibits A1, A4 and A8. On 04/11/2015, the Claimant’s appointment was confirmed after his two - year probationary period – Exhibit A2. The Claimant has thus proved that he fulfilled the requirements for his appointment as stated in his letter of offer of appointment and that his appointment was thereafter confirmed. The burden of leading evidence in rebuttal shifted on the Defendants.

23. However, the Defendants failed to tender any document to discharge the burden in rebuttal. The Defendants merely alleged that the Claimant’s employment was not in compliance with the procedure as provided in paragraph 2.1 and 2.2 of the Kogi State Polytechnic Revised Conditions and Scheme of Service for Staff but failed to prove their assertion. The Defendants ought to have tendered documents to prove that their claim that positions for such employment had been advertised in the past. The Defendants also failed to prove that the Claimant and all other persons affected by the stoppage of their salaries were informed before the salary was stopped.

24. It is important to further note that as stated in Section B paragraph 1.2 (a) of the Revised Conditions and Scheme of Service – Exhibit A5, the method of entry is by direct appointment of holders of good honours degree not below Second Class Lower or equivalent qualification, with NYSC discharge certificate. The Claimant tendered documents as required by Exhibit A5. The unequivocal finding of this Court is that the Claimant has essentially established a ‘prima facie’ evidence by placing the exhibits to prove that he complied with the process of his appointment as stated in his letter of offer of employment. In other words, the process of the appointment of the Claimant was regular. And I so hold.

25. On the issue of termination of appointment of the Claimant, placing reliance on paragraph 7 of the Condition of Service in Exhibit A, counsel for the Defendants argued that the termination of the Claimant’s appointment was automatic from the occurrence of the circumstances that prevents the Polytechnic (the 3rd Defendant) from carrying out the terms of the employment which was beyond its reasonable control and argued that the 1st Defendant is exonerated from any liability that arise in terms of salaries, notice or salary in lieu of notice terminating the Claimant’s appointment. Having held that the Claimant’s appointment is regular, the defence of carrying out the terms of employment by circumstances beyond control does not avail

the Defendants. And I so further hold.

26. As I earlier stated, the crux of the Claimant’s case is for payment of his salaries and allowances that were stopped and/or removal of his name from the payroll by the Defendants since April 2017. Counsel for the Claimant submitted that by paragraph 4.3 of Exhibit A5, payment of salary is a right and that it can only be withheld, suspended or stopped as a result of a disciplinary action.

In reaction, Defendants’ counsel submitted that the facts of the Claimant’s case do not support a violation of Fundamental Human Rights and has not proved any of the reliefs under Sections 33, 34, 35, 36, 43 and 44 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria or any other law. Counsel argued further that Claimant’s appointment has been terminated and he has not been working or engaged in any duty since 2017. He therefore urged the Court to hold that the Claimant is not entitled to the sum claimed or any sum at all.

27. Now, the name of the Claimant was still uncleared for the payroll as at 06/08/2019, when the letters/Memos written by Registrar/Secretary of the 4th Defendant to the Chairperson, Kogi State Staff Pay Parade, Exhibits A6 and A6B were written. Thereafter, the Hon. Attorney General wrote Exhibit A7, to the Secretary to advise the State Government to capture and restore the name of the Claimant to the government payroll. Apparently, the Claimant was not captured and his name restored, hence, this case was instituted. The implication of the above evidence is that the Claimant has not worked or been engaged in any duty since his salary was stopped in April 2017.  Having not worked from April 2017 till date, is the Claimant entitled to his claims for salary, allowances and reinstatement? My answer to this poser is an emphatic, no! 

28. The settled law is that where there is an improper removal of an employee from an employment protected by statute, the consequence is that the employee has not been removed from office. Or put differently, once dismissal or termination of employment is declared null and void, there is nothing legally standing in the way of the employee from having his or her job back with its attendant rights, benefits and privileges. See Visitor, Imo State University & Ors Vs Prof Okonkwo & Ors [2014] LPELR; Kwara Polytechnic Ilorin Vs Oyebanji [2008] All FWLR (Pt 447) 141 at 199.

Not being a case of termination or dismissal of appointment, the above stated principle is not applicable to the Claimant. I also agree with the submission of Defendants’ counsel that the facts presented by the Claimant does not support his claim for violation of his fundamental human rights.

29. However, I am not unmindful that by the conditions of service, the Claimant’s salary is a right which can only be withheld, suspended or stopped as a result of a disciplinary action. It is therefore my finding that the Defendants by their action are in breach of paragraph 4.3 (a) the Conditions of Service, Exhibit A5, by stopping the Claimant’s salary and removing his name from the pay roll, not being as a result of disciplinary action. Therefore, the Claimant is entitled to his claim for damages. And I so hold. 

30. The principles guiding the assessment and award of damages as compensation have been set out in a plethora of decisions of the Apex Court. In G. Chitex Ind. Ltd Vs Oceanic International Bank [2005] LPELR-1293 Musdapher JSC (as he then was) stated thus;

‘...the amount of damages to be paid to a person for breach of contract is the amount it will entail to put the person in the position he would have been if there had not been any breach of contract…”.

Again, damages are meant to be full and adequate. However, as pointed out in British Transport Commission Vs Gourley [1956] AC 185 at 208, the fullness and adequacy of damages awarded as compensation depends on the proven facts of each case and a just and fair assessment of the injury suffered or complained of.

31. Having considered the principles of law above stated and taking into consideration of the facts of the deprivation of the Claimant’s job, salary and removal of his name from the pay roll since April 2017, and having considered that as stated in the Internal Verification Form, Exhibit A4, the expected date of Claimant’s retirement is on 1st November, 2047, a sum of N25,000,000 (Twenty-Five Million Naira) is hereby awarded in favor of the Claimant as damages. And I so hold.

32. In the overall analysis, the Court adjudges the claims of the Claimant as meritorious in part. For avoidance of doubts and abundance of clarity, judgement is hereby entered in favor of the Claimant in part, against the Defendants upon the terms set out as follows:

1.                 The Defendants are hereby ordered to pay to the Claimant. the sum of N25,000,000 (Twenty-Five Million Naira) as damages.  

2.                 It is hereby further ordered that the Defendant shall pay to the Claimant the sum set out in (1) above within thirty (30) days

3.                 10% interest is awarded on the judgement sum from the date of judgement till final liquidation.

Parties shall bear their respective costs.

 

 SINMISOLA O. ADENIYI

(Hon. Judge)

14/01/2026

 

Legal representation:

O. A. Onoja Esq. for Claimant

Oyetunji E. Ojuokaiye Esq. for Defendants